Simply A Masterpiece

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Better than Batman and robin but still mediocre film. It tries too hard to combine Tim Burtons characters with their campy earlier versions. The result is unsatisfying movie thats more of a product than a actual piece of decent scripting!

Batman and Batman Returns will always be my favorite films to watch. This one didn't have a dark tone like Tim Burton's two films. It's underrated and campy but I like it and it's good to enjoy the action. Val Kilmer was all right playing Batman and Bruce Wayne. When I watch him he feels like he's calm and smooth. Jim Carrey was crazy and demented as the Riddler. He was almost like Jack Nicholson's Joker. Although Carrey played a crazy character in the Cable Guy. Tommy Lee Jones was a bad boy as Two-Face. Chris O'Donnell did a great performance as Robin. Nicole Kidman captured my eyes and heart with her character. She is beautiful and I like her. Top 3 Batman films 1. Batman (1989) 2. Batman Returns 3. Batman Forever

"Batman Forever" has all the makings of a great superhero film, the costume design are top notch, Gotham City looks great and the special effects never betray the fact that this was released in 1995, and I particularly adored the moment where the Bat-Signal became the dot under the Riddler's interrogation mark, all in flashy green. But I can also use a still frame of that moment to describe my general puzzlement toward the film. It's not bad enough to deserve a severe bashing but it's one of these cases where a film comes so close to being great that your disappointment almost amplifies the flaws. I could say that at least, this is no "Batman & Robin" but that wouldn't say much, would it? So, Burton became the producer and Joel Schumacher, although in another league of filmmaking, injected something fresh and unprecedented in a franchise that was getting maybe too dark and too gloomy for its own good. Batman is no jovial fellow but the problem when you overplay the noir tone is that you create a world where the notion of 'heroism' is totally relative. And when someone goes to such extents to save the world from crime, having to wear all these heavy costumes, and engineering the most sophisticated weapons, you've got to accept that there are positive motives behind it. At the end of "Batman Returns", I felt quite depressed, this was a movie where the villains were as misfit as the 'hero' and needed a great deal of psychotherapy. "Batman Forever" tends to get to the original format with a clearly defined hero and villain and still maintain a balanced psychological approach to Bruce Wayne. It's not all flash and no substance.And another mistake it doesn't commit is to overflow the film with villains like "Returns", this time, there are two bad guys, they're not on the same level than Joker, but together, they form a pair that is rather entertaining although a bit redundant, there's the maniac Harvey Dent two-Face played by Tommy Lee Jones and Edward Nygma aka the Riddler, a scientist played by Jim Carrey. They form a rather interesting duo except for one thing: they're equally crazy, and it's like each one tries to top the other, they're like the human versions of "The Lion King" hyenas or the weasels from "Who framed Roger Rabbi". On the other hand, Val Kilmer (a decent Batman) plays a low-key Bruce Wayne who meets journalist Chase Meredian (Nicole Kidman) with and without the costume. Well, she's obviously attracted by his leather counterpart but from his interactions, you can tell he's tempted to unveil a few of his secrets, the interactions work and prove that there's not a Batman movie with a good romantic love interest.But while Serena Kyle was also enigmatic on her own right and kind of stole Batman's thunder, Chase is that little anchor to Batman's status as a hero, even hinting at some sexual aspects of Batman, the movie generally pretends to ignore, there's a sort of self-awareness to appreciate in the film. Overall, I loved how it tried some new things while respecting a form of continuity with the previous Batman, and that includes another great performance from Michael Gough as Alfred. I guess it also gets right the encounter with Dick Grayson aka future Robin in a circus scene that has all the futuristic and baroque visuals you expect from a Batman film, spicing up the movie with a new young and rebellious protagonist who's the tumultuous Yin to Batman's yang. The Freudian undertones are subdued; we know there's something of a surrogate father in Batman with Robin, while he's also hooked to the memories of his parents' death and the conviction that he killed them somehow.But the film seems always at the edge of reaching something powerful without really getting to it, and I guess the blame is on the overuse of special effects and the villains that never find the right note. When Bruce and Grace's interview were disrupted by their entrance, I was bothered too and I didn't really care for the part where Riddler was throwing explosive balls. Sure the pyrotechnics did justice to the film's budget, but did it have more to prove on a less visual level? I seriously wish it would have tried to explore more in depth the personality of "Batman", especially from the perspective of a journalist. That's what makes "Batman Forever" a frustrating experience, moments of brilliance ruined by unexpected plot contrivances and too flashy visuals thrown at our faces.I will never understand what the purpose of that close-up on Batman rubber buttocks was supposed to inspire, what the writers thought when Grace came up with such a corny line as "Batman will come to rescue me" and the two villains venture so many times in cartoons' territory, especially with Carrey channeling both the Mask and Ace Ventura, that you have the feeling Bruce Wayne is really lost, as the only realistic man, caught in a live-action cartoon. Joel Schumacher is no untalented director, he got the budget, the right casting and the special effects but for some reason, he didn't create the right balance between the hero and villains' personality, so that the film often falls in the obvious trap and while being slightly better than "Batman Returns" never reaches the level of "Batman", it's a mixed bag, but with a few enjoyable moments.Again, it plays many leagues above "Batman & Robin", which explains why they went for a fourth movie, you know, the one too many.

In 1995, I went to my local cinema with my dad and brothers to see this particular Batman movie and quite liking it. All these years later, "Batman Forever" is pretty good. The action scenes are capably handled, Tommy Lee Jones is an excellent villain as Harvey "Two-Face" Dent and Michael Gough and Pat Hingle reprise their respective roles. Val Kilmer is absolutely wooden as both Bruce Wayne and Batman (no doubt he was too busy thinking about his paycheck). He displays no depth and little emotion. He is very much a star from yesteryear. Nicole Kidman is the same - bland and irritating. Jim Carrey is OK as the Riddler but my word, he takes it a bit far at times! Chris O' Donnell is better than I thought as Robin. The photography and style are both complete opposites to Tim Burton's two films. In "Batman Forever," everything is much more bright and colourful. The pace is pretty good. Watch this for some undemanding fun.